Well done, hope it brings lots of sales for you.

Companies are often successful in spite of their management.  Problem is that they believe they're successful because of their management. 

Very true

I shoot Progressive at 1080i.

Ever tried shooting Interlaced at 1080p  

FYI:
1080i is Interlaced
1080p is Progressive.

@ the OP, I'd say shoot at the highest quality setting your camera allows which from your latest post would be 1080p.

Again you have it all wrong, you cannot trademark the word "Apple". You may use the word injuction with other words, such as Apple Computer or Apple Electronics.

So apart from the fact that even you yourself quoted some text from the UK IP office stating that you can trademark a word, and three other people here all telling you that you can and providing links, and the fact that they (Apple inc) have trademarked the word 'apple' you still can't seem to grasp it, here are some more links which no doubt you'll think are wrong:

http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/appletmlist.html

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4007:kootm5.2.50

and if you still don't believe it here's a link to the UKIP office trademarks search where you can search yourself:

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tm/t-find/t-find-text/tmtsearch-default.aspx

On the first box make sure it's for "word only" and on the second change it to "exact" then enter the word 'apple' in the first box, leave everything else as it is and hit search, you'll get a list of all the trademarks for the word 'Apple' only, if you then click on the registration number (during business hours because it's a live search) you'll get a copy of the registration detailing who owns the TM and the classes for which they registered it.

Without being rude it is because of people just like you that the agencies are so paranoid about IP, I'm not going to try and convince you anymore because by now even my dog knows that you can trademark the word 'Apple' and that it already is a trademark many, many times over.

shotupdave

Exactly the section you've pasted clearly explains that you CAN trademark the name 'Apple' and that's exactly what Apple computers have done, nobody else in the world can TRADE in the computer manufacturing business using the MARK 'Apple', plus I have no doubt they've trademarked 'Apple' for various other trademark classes.

But it would still appear that you are confused between trademarks and copyright.

Clearly you don't believe anybody here so if you'd like to do a trademark search on the site from where you copy/pasted that text you'll find on the first page of results that another company has 'trademarked' the word Apple for use in the fuel industry, they have also trademarked their logo.

I will repeat my statement, you can't trademark the word "apple".

Yes you can.

That being said, it does not explain why the OP's keyword was rejected.

The explanation for that is like 'shotupdave' they don't understand what a trademark is.

I also wonder if you can be classified as self employed when most of your earnings come from one company?  I'm not a tax expert and there is probably a way around it but I wouldn't want to risk my self employed status.

You wouldn't in anyway whatsoever risk your self employed status by only supplying one agency, even if your total income only came from them. You'd need to have a contract and rights of employment (i.e. sick pay, holiday entitlement, working hours etc) before you'd even be considered 'employed'.

I will be very surprised if H&F are still the owners of Istock/Getty by the end of 2011.

They'll have sold the main part of Getty, but they'll keep iStock because by then all the independents plus the top crowns will have left and the remaining exclusives will be on 5% commission safe in the knowledge that money doesn't make them happy, they'll occasionally get an email ending in 'you guys rock' which will give them a warm feeling of belonging to a community.

Ive read way more strategy books than I need to not to eat the s#it you're trying to feed me

I'm not trying to feed you anything, just trying to point out that misquoting events and claiming a company was operating at a loss when in actual fact it wasn't and providing the figures to prove that obviously aren't enough for you, try and get your facts right in the future it will benefit everyone.

 

Quote from: RT on September 13, 2010, 13:37

Quote from: weirdvis on September 13, 2010, 13:24

 Will you be raising concerns if an RGB referral buys one of your images? 

I'd probably be left wondering whether they'd had bought more if free sites like RGB didn't exist.

Well apparently the likes of iStock and StockXpert wouldn't have come into being for you to sell your images.   

That's right I'd still be earning $300 for each download 

If the person is allowed to do contrast, levels, saturation, and adjustments with masks or layers, that's not "shopped" it's just editing and adjusting. If they add elements, alter or remove things, then it's Photoshopped. Otherwise we'd have to submit images straight out of camera?

+1

I wouldn't class this image as 'Digital manipulation'

Quote from: RT on September 13, 2010, 10:34

I'd be interested to see where you got that information from? I can't find anything to suggest they were bought because they were in financial trouble and was just going by their reported financial figures which show exactly what I've indicated above, it also showed their share price had been maintaining a steady level until Dec 07 when it dropped, which by strange coincidence is just before the company was sold to H&F.

You have to be kidding Richard. Getty's share price had dropped 73.5% in the two years before they sold out. The shareholders were grateful to grab H&F's cash to stem their own losses. There were no counterbids to H&F's offer.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/02/25/getty-hellman-friedman-update-equity-cx_md_0226-markets33.html

Interesting article and I agree it does state the drop in share price, however I stand by what I've always said about the company operating profits and that they were not operating at a loss:

http://www.advfn.com/p.php?pid=financials&btn=annual_reports&mode=&symbol=NYSE%3AGYI

Check out the 5yr trends, especially the total net income!

Istock wasn't sold to 'raise capital to expand'. It was sold to put $50M in Bruce's back-bin.

Personal opinion aside, according to interviews with Bruce Livingstone and Patrick Lor:

iStockphoto was able to support its operations for many years from the revenue generated by photo sales. However, during business planning in late 2005, the company realized that they needed about $10 million to meet their future growth expectations, including $3 million for hardware expansion costs. With this new capital requirement, the iStockphoto management team sought venture funding for the first time. After securing a term sheet from a VC, management became hesitant that this was the best option for the company. The team feared that they would not be able to maintain product control or nurture the community in the same fashion that iStockphoto had been built upon. Thus Bruce decided to seek other options, and contacted Jonathan Klein, CEO of Getty Images. After some positive conversations regarding company strategy and cultural fit, iStockphoto was sold to Getty Images in February 2006 for $50 million in cash. This represented a valuation substantially higher than the valuation placed on the company by the proposed VC investment. Hence the sale to Getty Images made both financial and cultural sense for Bruce and the rest of the iStockphoto team.

Well I think they have faced financial trouble and operating at loss, the same as Corbis and others. Actually it would be better Getty copying the formula of istock, than viceversa (what they tend to do now).

Don't believe all the hype you read, they are certainly not suffering any financial trouble or operating loss regards their trading figures, last year on sales of over $850m they made a gross profit margin of 72.7% and an EBITDA of 32.6%, H&F certainly wouldn't have paid $2.4b to buy a company that was in financial trouble, the trouble you read about, the same that iStock are now reporting, is a result of the greedy 'merchant bankers' wanting to line their pockets and spending more than they can afford to, it has nothing to do with the companies actual operating profit.